Roger Merritt Thieleman v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-17-00006-CR
    ROGER MERRITT THIELEMAN                                             APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                        STATE
    ----------
    FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY
    TRIAL COURT NO. 0802855D
    ----------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    ----------
    In January 2017, we received Appellant Roger Merritt Thieleman’s “Motion
    to Appeal Magistrate’s Decision” complaining of the magistrate’s November 21,
    2016 denial of his request for the appointment of counsel to file a postconviction
    DNA motion and to assist him in seeking postconviction habeas relief.         The
    district judge denied Appellant’s request for reconsideration of the magistrate’s
    1
    See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    decision on November 29, 2016. The “Motion to Appeal” was file-marked by the
    trial court clerk on November 30, 2016.
    Liberally construing the document as a notice of appeal from the district
    court’s decision, see Tex. R. App. P. 27.1(b), we notified Appellant on January
    13, 2017, that we have no appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from
    orders denying counsel for DNA testing, Gutierrez v. State, 
    307 S.W.3d 318
    , 323
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), or over appeals relating to the denial of postconviction
    relief under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure, Tex. Code Crim.
    Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5 (West 2015), including the denial of requests for
    appointment of counsel, Cooper v. State, No. 02-15-00145-CR, 
    2015 WL 3799069
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 18, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not
    designated for publication); Ex parte Wall, Nos. 02-11-00326-CR, 02-11-00517-
    CR, 
    2012 WL 5869595
    , at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 21, 2012, no pet.)
    (mem. op., not designated for publication). We warned Appellant that absent a
    response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we could dismiss it for want
    of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). We have received no response.
    Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
    PER CURIAM
    PANEL: PITTMAN, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and WALKER, J.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: March 9, 2017
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-17-00006-CR

Filed Date: 3/9/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/15/2017